ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 N 2429

Date: 2013-10-24

REPLACES: —

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32

Data Management and Interchange

Secretariat: United States of America (ANSI)

Administered by Farance Inc. on behalf of ANSI

DOCUMENT TYPE / Summary of Voting/Table of Replies
TITLE / Summary of Voting on 32N2403 CD3 11179-5 Information Technology - Metadata Registries (MDR) - Part 5: Naming and identification principles, Ed 3
SOURCE / SC32 Secretariat
PROJECT NUMBER / 1.32.15.03.05.00
STATUS / The document obtained substantial support. WG2 is requested to address the comments and revise the draft text accordingly.
REFERENCES
ACTION ID. / ACT
REQUESTED ACTION
DUE DATE
Number of Pages / 9
LANGUAGE USED / English
DISTRIBUTION / P & L Members
SC Chair
WG Conveners and Secretaries

Dr. Timothy Schoechle, Secretary, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32

Farance Inc *, 3066 Sixth Street, Boulder, CO, United States of America

Telephone: +1 303-443-5490; E-mail:

available from the JTC 1/SC 32 WebSite http://www.jtc1sc32.org/

*Farance Inc. administers the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 Secretariat on behalf of ANSI

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 N2429

Summary of Voting on Document SC 32 N 2403

Title: CD3 11179-5 Information Technology - Metadata Registries (MDR) - Part 5: Naming and identification principles, Ed 3

Project: 1.32.15.03.05.00

“P” Member / Approval / Approval with Comments / Disapproval with Comments / Abstention with Comments
Canada / 1
China / 1
Czech Republic / 1
Egypt / 1
Finland / 1
Germany / 1
India / 1
Japan / 1
Korea, Republic of / 1
Portugal / 1
Russian Federation / 1
United Kingdom / 1
United States / 1
Total “P” / 6 / 2 / 1 / 4
“O” Member
Austria
Belgium
France / 1
Ghana
Hungary
Indonesia
Italy
Kazakhstan
Netherlands, The
Norway
Romania
Poland
Sweden
Switzerland
Total “O”

Dr. Timothy Schoechle, Secretary, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32

Farance Inc *, 3066 Sixth Street, Boulder, CO, United States of America

Telephone: +1 303-443-5490; E-mail:

available from the JTC 1/SC 32 WebSite http://www.jtc1sc32.org/

*Farance Inc. administers the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32 Secretariat on behalf of ANSI

COMMENTS:

Canada

NO. See comments below:

Finland

ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.

Germany

ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.

India

ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.

Portugal

ABSTAIN. Lack of expertise and interest.

United Kingdom

YES See comments below:

United States

YES. See comments below:

Canadian Comments on SC32 N2403 CD3 11179-5 / Date: 2013-10-07 / Document: 32N2403 / Project: ISO/CD3 11179-5
MB/NC1 / Line number
(e.g. 17) / Clause/ Subclause
(e.g. 3.1) / Paragraph/ Figure/ Table/
(e.g. Table 1) / Type of comment2 / Comments / Proposed change / Observations of the secretariat
CA
00 / All / All / - / Ge / Canada disapproves of the draft for the reasons below. / Canada will change its vote to Approval if the comments below are satisfactorily addressed.
CA
01 / 166-275 / 3 / Terms / Ed / Referencing definitions from other standards without actually including them requires the reader to obtain and access those other standards. This document would be more usable if the required terms and definitions were repeated here, with references to indicate from whence they come. / For all terms used in this standard, include the terms and definitions in clause 3, with a reference to the source.
CA
02 / 166-275 / 3 / Defined terms / Ed / Where defined terms are used in the definitions of other terms, those terms should be shown in bold typeface and a cross-reference to the definition of the term should be included. / Apply the changes as needed.
CA
03 / 171 / 3.1 / Definition / Ed / 'registered item' is defined at 3.17. / Make the term bold and add a xref.
CA
04 / 175 / 3.2 / Definition / Ed / The reference to clause 3.1.1 comes from ISO 1087-1:2000. 'object' is defined in this document at 3.12. Property should be added per CA01. / Make the terms bold and add/correct xrefs.
CA
05 / 176 / 3.2 / Note / Ed / 'concept' is defined at 3.3. / Make the term bold and add a xref.
CA
06 / 179 / 3.3 / Definition / Ed / 'characteristic' is defined at 3.2. / Make the term bold and add a xref.
CA
07 / 184 / 3.4 / Definition / Ed / 'designation' is defined at 3.5. / Make the term bold and add a xref.
CA
08 / 187 / 3.5 / Definition / Ed / 'concept' is defined at 3.3 and 'sign' is defined at 3.23. / Make the terms bold and add xrefs.
CA
09 / 190 / 3.6 / Definition / Ed / 'concept' is defined at 3.3 and 'object' is defined at 3.12. / Make the terms bold and add xrefs.
CA
10 / 198 / 3.8 / Definition / Ed / 'designation' is defined at 3.5. / Make the term bold and add a xref.
CA
11 / 202 / 3.9 / Definition / Ed / 'name' is defined at 3.8. / Make the term bold and add a xref.
CA
12 / 205 / 3.10 / Definition / Ed / 'designation' is defined at 3.5 and 'scoped identifier' should be added per CA01. / Make the terms bold and add xrefs.
CA
13 / 210 / 3.11 / Definition / Ed / 'designation' is defined at 3.5, 'sign' is defined at 3.23 and scoped identifier should be add per CA01. / Make the terms bold and add xrefs.
CA
14 / 221-222 / 3.13 / Definition / Ed / 'name' is defined at 3.8, and designatable item and object class should be added per CA01. / Make the terms bold and add xrefs.
CA
15 / 230-231 / 3.15 / Definition / Ed / 'name' is defined at 3.8, and designatable item, property and object class should be added per CA01. / Make the terms bold and add xrefs.
CA
16 / 234 / 3.16 / Definition / Ed / 'concept' is defined at 3.3. / Make the term bold and add a xref.
CA
17 / 237 / 3.17 / Definition / Ed / 'metadata item' and ' metadata registry' should be added per CA01. / Make the terms bold and add xrefs.
CA
18 / 244 / 3.19 / Definition / Ed / 'designation' is defined at 3.5, 'representation class' is defined at 3.18. / Make the terms bold and add xrefs.
CA
19 / 264 / 3.25 / Definition / Ed / 'concept' is defined at 3.3. / Make the term bold and add a xref.
CA
20 / 274 / 3.27 / Definition / Ed / 'designation' is defined at 3.5 / Make the term bold and add a xref.
CA
99 / Ge / If any further problems are discovered before or during the Comment Resolution Meeting, and a consensus can be reached on a solution, then they should be corrected. / To be determined at the CRM as required.

1 MB = Member body / NC = National Committee (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **)

2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial

page 2 of 7

ISO/IEC/CEN/CENELEC electronic balloting commenting template/version 2012-03

Template for comments and secretariat observations / Date: 2013.09.06 / Document: ISO/JTC1/SC32 N2403 / Project: ISO/IEC CD3 11179-5
MB/NC1 / Line number
(e.g. 17) / Clause/ Subclause
(e.g. 3.1) / Paragraph/ Figure/ Table/
(e.g. Table 1) / Type of comment2 / Comments / Proposed change / Observations of the secretariat
GB / General / ed / There is still the problem, noted in our comments to CD2, that there are a number of instances where "Error! Reference source not found" appears on our copy, for example in headers and footers and the main title. This does not appear on the .doc copy on the website but does appear on both the .pdf on the SC32 website and the .pdf issued to us by BSI, but manifests itself differently in both of these two.pdf documents. / Sort out automatic referencing.
GB / General / ed / Line numbering has been used as requested, but the actual line numbers are different on all three versions available to us. The .pdf version issued by BSI has the “Introduction” heading as line 90. The .pdf version on the SC32 website has the same “Introduction” heading as line 91. The .doc version on the SC32 website has the same “Introduction” heading as line 92. / Ensure line numbers are consistent across versions.

1 MB = Member body / NC = National Committee (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **)

2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial

page 1 of 7

ISO/IEC/CEN/CENELEC electronic balloting commenting template/version 2012-03

Template for comments and secretariat observations / Date: 19 August 2013 / Document: SC32 N 2403 / Project: CD 11179-5 Ed3
MB/NC1 / Line number
(e.g. 17) / Clause/ Subclause
(e.g. 3.1) / Paragraph/ Figure/ Table/
(e.g. Table 1) / Type of comment2 / Comments / Proposed change / Observations of the secretariat
US-01 / 95 / Intro / 2nd paragraph / te / Names are defined as designations, not signs or combinations thereof – see 3.8. Designations are not signs – see 3.5. / Remove parenthetical phrase “signs and combinations of signs”.
US-02 / 129 / Intro / 8th paragraph / ed / The antecedent to “these” in “these have been omitted in the document for readability” is not clear. / Suggest substituting “the underscores” for “these”.
US-03 / 148 / Scope / 4th paragraph / ed / Not all spoken languages are national, but they are natural. / Substitute “natural” for :national”.
US-04 / 151 / Scope / 5th paragraph / ed / “of the naming” sounds stilted. / Substitute “of names”.
US-05 / 157 / Scope / 5th paragraph / ed / “scheme name, etc” uses the wrong separator since the first two items in the list are separated by a semi-colon. / Use “scheme name; etc” instead.
US-06 / Bibliography / ed / It looks as though ISO 1087-1 should be added to bibliography, since it is listed multiple times as the reference for definitions in Clause 3. / Add the reference.
US-07 / 3.8 / ed / Given definition 3.5 for Designation, the definition for Name is inconsistent with it. We recognize this definition is copied from 11179-3, but to accept this compounds an error. / Recast 3.8 as follows:
Name
representation of an object by a linguistic expression, which denotes it.
Note: This definition is slightly altered from that in 11179-3 in order to satisfy the scope of this Part.
US-08 / 3.10 / Note / ed / Out of scope.
NOTE The term namespace is used in this International Standard because it is in common use, even though the concept is being applied to identifiers as well as names. [ISO/IEC 11179-3:2013] / Remove.
US-09 / 3.11 / naming convention / ed / “signs of designations and/or scoped identifiers” is out of scope.
3.11
naming convention
specification of how signs of designations and/or scoped identifiers are formulated / Change definition to read
specification of how names are formulated.
Note: This definition is slightly altered from 11179-3, because names may include other than designations or scoped identifiers.
US-10 / 3.18 / te / Definition is vacuous since it uses different forms of the same words as are in the term itself. / Suggest new definition:
concept corresponding to representations of data elements based on attributes including datatype and dimensionality.
US-11 / 3.19 / te / From US-10, representation class is a usage of a concept. Therefore, a representation term is a designation of a representation class. / Modify definition by removing “of an instance”.
US-12 / 6 / 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence / ed / Signs denote words in natural languages, they aren’t the words themselves, since words have meanings. / Add “a string denoting” between “be” and “a word” and “a string denoting a term in a special language,” between “language,” and “or an icon”.
US-13 / 6 / 1st paragraph, 4th sentences / ed / Not clear. / Suggest new wording
The output of a naming convention is a set of names and (possibly) symbols, such as dollar signs.
US-14 / 7 / 1st paragraph, last sentence / ed / There are no facts that are always irrelevant for names. Sentence needs to be reformulated. / Suggest the following wording:
An effective naming convention can also enforce the exclusion of irrelevant facts about the designatable item from the name. Though there are no facts that are irrelevant in every case, the input source of a data element or its position in a file might be if names are designed to convey meaning.
US-15 / 8.1.1 / ed / Needs example. / Rewrite example in Annex A here also.
US-16 / 8.2 / 2nd paragraph, last sentence / ed / Not complete. / Suggest the following wording:
See sub-clause 9.7 for a description of the uniqueness principle and a discussion of the rules that might follow.
US-17 / 504-505 / 10.2 / te / Not clear what the intention of this sub-clause is. The title itself does not make sense, nor does the text, especially paragraph 2. It is too terse. / Suggest new title: Classification schemes for concept classes
Rewrite 2nd paragraph in a more concrete fashion. Use an example, such as OC=Person, P=Age, DEC=Age of Person and the relationship between OC and P to form DEC can be used to form the name of the DEC.
US-18 / Annex C / designation of designatable item / ed / This sows confusion because a sign is not a name nor is it a designation. / Suggest removing “synonym if name”. This additional information is not necessary to establish the concordance.
US-19 / Annex C / uniqueness rule / te / As per US-19 in SC32 N 2404, the uniqueness for a naming convention is not uniquely defined by the namespace attributes. / Remove.

1 MB = Member body / NC = National Committee (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **)

2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial

page 3 of 9

ISO/IEC/CEN/CENELEC electronic balloting commenting template/version 2012-03